Overstepping authority?

[Mr. P]

Often have seen an architect over bear on AFD. Why would you want an L1 system in a building 10 x 30 m where the only enclosed space is a toilet? And, the building is so remote , no-one would ever hear it going off when un-occupied. I told the client shouting would suffice or even a manual system if pushing the boat out. But, they took the 9 yards and are now stuck with long term maintenance, inspection etc. By the way, some of places are only used once a week for a few hours.
I understand that some architects work on job cost basis - price for plans/drawings & getting them through BC/Planning and, a percentage of final works costs. So, you can easily see how that could work.

[nearlythere]

Way I see it folks is that this is a matter between the architect and his client.  It may be over provision or it may be how the client wants it. What does it have to do with the enforcement authority when it should only concern itself with the minimum requirment.
When I take my car for an MOT test I don't get a list of unnecessary gagets and gismos which can be ripped out as they are not a necessary safety feature required to ensure compliance with legislation.

[Midland Retty]

Thats fair comment Nearlythere, and you are right it really isn't any of the enforcing authority's business to concern itself with over provision.

But that said enforcing authorities dont just enforce, they give advice too. So I don't see any harm in an inspector giving goodwill advice or a "heads up"

How many times have we all come across the over provision of fire extinguishers in buildings? Only last week I pointed out over provision of extinguishers to a punter. As a result they will end up saving a substantial amount in servicing and maintenance costs, which they would have otherwise continued to pay.

So particularly in the current climate, where people need to tighten their belts things like this play their part. Infact I think you will find theyare welcomed by the average punter. They aren't technically knowledgeable in the field of fire safety and thus cannot be sure when someone is pulling the wool over their eyes.

[Davo]

Often a little bit of friendly advice/steer earns brownie points for the FRS, word gets around, eh


davo

[Wiz]

Often have seen an architect over bear on AFD. Why would you want an L1 system in a building 10 x 30 m where the only enclosed space is a toilet? And, the building is so remote , no-one would ever hear it going off when un-occupied. I told the client shouting would suffice or even a manual system if pushing the boat out. But, they took the 9 yards and are now stuck with long term maintenance, inspection etc. By the way, some of places are only used once a week for a few hours.
I understand that some architects work on job cost basis - price for plans/drawings & getting them through BC/Planning and, a percentage of final works costs. So, you can easily see how that could work.

Apart from the extra fees, the Architect just about covers his *rse totally by specifying an L1 system!!!!

[nearlythere]

I have always considered that to be the case Wiz. Most architects haven't a clue so if everything is put in everythere it is bound to be right.
Fire doors, emergency lighting and fire alarm systems galore.

[Midland Retty]

Often a little bit of friendly advice/steer earns brownie points for the FRS, word gets around, eh


davo

Its not just that Davo, the fire service has a duty to offer friendly advice and steer people in the right direction whenever they can.

[tmprojects]

Would it be fair for an enforcing authority to point out where a quote for an alarm system is way over the mark? (To the tune of at least 100% over what might be expected)

My view is: Yes, for the following reasons:

I think it is quite blatantly 'fair' that we point this out.
I think it is our responsiblity to ensure that the burden on businesses is minimal where possible. (Hampton Principles)
Our priority is protecting members of the public, not ensuring that installers make a profit.
Under the Fire Services Act we have a duty to give 'goodwill advice' and I think this falls within that remit.
This is the sort of thing that gives fire safety a bad name.

Feel free to disgree, but most of all if there is any legal/commercial viewpoint I would be interested to hear it.

I absolutely agree. this is NOT over stepping authority? In my view its our duty.

I have suffered this very scenario. I was discraced to see a Risk assessor had recommended x y & z. and happily quoted £££thousands for it.

I pointed out to the occupier that all of his recomendations were not required to comply with the FSO. 'I will stress i did point out that his Insurance co. would look favourabley on them'.

In short, i received a call from the Risk Assessor saying 'i had no right to undermine his recommendations' He said that  my role as 'enforcing authority' was to judge compliance and nothing else. And that I had no right to say anything other to the RP.

I told him under the FSO maybe! But not under the Fire Services Act Its our duty to provide 'impartial advice'. And i will do just that. And if you think i'm wrong. challenge me!!

[CivvyFSO]

In short, i received a call from the Risk Assessor saying 'i had no right to undermine his recommendations' He said that  my role as 'enforcing authority' was to judge compliance and nothing else. And that I had no right to say anything other to the RP.

I told him under the FSO maybe! But not under the Fire Services Act Its our duty to provide 'impartial advice'. And i will do just that. And if you think i'm wrong. challenge me!!

Or explain to the risk assessor that you could quite easily issue an enforcement notice to bring the premises up to compliance, and that notice would NOT include half of the things he mentioned as a notice should only detail the minimum required in order to comply, and upon compying with the notice the RP would then be complying with the RRFSO.